Exxon wins freeze on $12 billion of Venezuelan assets

[Rage for Order]

Source: Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) has won court orders freezing up to $12 billion in Venezuelan assets around the world as it fights for compensation for operations lost to President Hugo Chavez's nationalization drive.

Exxon -- which last week posted the largest ever year's profit by a U.S. company -- said on Thursday it has received court orders in Britain, the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles each freezing up to $12 billion in assets of Venezuela state oil firm PDVSA. An Exxon spokeswoman said the total that could be frozen worldwide was $12 billion.

Exxon filed for arbitration in September with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Exxon has not specified how much it wants for the 41.7 percent stake in the Cerro Negro project, but it has said its remaining book investment in the project was about $750 million at the time the assets were expropriated.

PDVSA, one of the largest suppliers of crude oil to the United States, was not immediately available for comment. The White House and the U.S. State Department also declined to comment. Venezuela's sovereign bonds sold off after the court orders surfaced.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080208/bs_nm/exxon_venezula_dc

---

Looks like Hugo may have overplayed his hand. This could get ugly. :popcorn:

[Radical Activist]

1. Oh so that's why I see so many negative news stories about Chavez!

:think:

[robcon]

10. No it's because he is a negative person, caught stealing in this instance.

n/t

[Judi Lynn]

12. Feel free to provide facts to back up your claim Hugo Chavez has stolen from Exxon.

You'll be doing DU'ers a real favor, as it's clear you are one who is fastidious about the truth.

[northzax]

84. well, PDVSA, a company controlled by Hugo Chavez

with me so far?

signed a contract with ExxonMobil to build and operate the Cerro Negro facilities. ExxonMobil invested roughly a billion dollars, US, in the project between 1998-2003 when operations began. ExxonMobil owned 40.3% of the company, PDVSA owned the remainder. The plant was built using proprietary technology that ExxonMobil developed, at its own expense, to process very heavy crude oil and make it more valuable for export. with me so far?

in 2005, PDVSA told ExxonMobil that it was buying out ExxonMobil's share in the company. If ExxonMobil wished to continue other operations in Venezuela, it would accept $400m in unprocessed heavy crude oil in payment for its stake in Cerro Negro. ExxonMobil demurred, and was asked to leave the country completely.

The contract between ExxonMobil and PDVSA stated that transactions between the partners would be conducted in US dollars, unless both parties agreed to another method of payment. The contract stated that if PDVSA chose to buyout ExxonMobil, the price would be set at the International Courty for the Resolution of Business Disputes. both of these contract provisions were violated by PDVSA. most valuations of Cerro Negro classify it as worth about $3b (US) when the takeover happened. So PDVSA bought a 40% stake in the company for $16.6% of the company's actual worth, and refused to even pay in cash, insisting on oil (at the current market price, natch, therefore an amount that ExxonMobil would not have even been able to sell for a profit without refining and processing it (at Cerro Negro, funny enough)

ExxonMobil then went to the court specified in the contract and asked for a valuation of the firm and compensation for their 40%.

so, you want to explain how taking property from someone and paying significantly less than market value for it isn't theft? significantly, as in less than half, and then refusing to pay that even in cash.

can I take your house for $20k worth of bacon?

[polpilot]

99. So they invested $1 bil & want $12 Bil for 40% share?

[northzax]

106. no, they simply identified assets to freeze

if PDVSA had actually, I don't know, bothered to show up for the hearing it would have been significantly less. When PDVSA's lawyers present their case in a week or so it will likely be reduced to about $2b in frozen assets.

and the $12b is scattered over several countries, the amount in the US is about $300million sitting in a bank in New York. over $11b is in Europe, and there are PDVSA assets that ExxonMobil identified in the US of about $15b that they didn't seek to freeze because US law doesn't allow it (unlike UK or Dutch law). none the less, I don't see Chavez threatening the UK courts, or the Dutch courts, which were much more generous to ExxonMobil than the US court.

this is, of course, all a bunch of hullaballoo, everyone knows that in a couple of weeks the courts will reduce the amounts frozen after PDVSA makes its case to the arbitrators (assuming, of course that the good people at Curtis, Mallet-Prevost & Co. bother to show up this time.

and the valuation of $3b is probably way low, good estimates I have seen put it closer to $5-6B, of which a 42.5% share is $2.12B-$2.55B.

[subsuelo]

13. Oh really, please provide some evidence thanks n/t

[IsItJustMe]

15. I think it has more to do with him having oil, and the powers that be in this country wants their

oil. That's why our m$m is constantly hounding him. If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't even know who the guy is.

[Radical Activist]

16. If he stole from Exxon he should be given a medal.

The people leading that company are some of the worst criminals on earth.

[subsuelo]

24. interesting take

hard to argue the point really

[bitchkitty]

57. Harder than backing up your previous assertion?

I too would like to see the proof that Chavez stole from Exxon - or from anyone...

[polpilot]

100. Congressional medal of honor no less.

[Blue_Tires]

42. +1

[SpikeTss]

76. Very well said!

If we had a working judicial system 'companies' like Exxon wouldn't exist.
Or if they would, they'd be called what they are: A gathering of thugs.

[SusanaMontana41]

103. Right on

Couldn't have said it better. Exxon — which just posted the largest annual profit by an American company — has nothing to cry about.

Venezuela has this tiger by the tail.

[grahamhgreen]

28. When you take the property of thieves (Exxon), you are not stealing you are penalizing.

Just because you set up a complex scheme to game the system, doesn't mean that you are not simply a con man.

[DuaneBidoux]

78. One (company or otherwise) is not a thief unless there is a trial.

Due process in IMHO should apply to all.

A country can indeed have a right to nationalize property but nobody should have property expropriated without either process, due process, or some kind of recognition that compensation is required.

In any case, between Chavez appropriating the property, land, and otherwise of both individuals and countries he is proving that he is ignorant of any kind of market principles that will, ultimately, win out and sink his ship.

It is not possible to have a conspiracy of capitalist pigs big enough to explain all the things going wrong in his country now.

[AlphaCentauri]

31. Holly S*, oil was made by God. According to a pentecostal preacher

that I was listening last week, he said all the oil that the enemies of America have it's god creation and so the church will own it.
I think that preacher knows more than me about this exxon deals.

[struggle4progress]

68. " ... In June last year, Venezuela passed a law, under which multinational companies should give ...

... at least 60 percent of the capital in their Venezuelan operations to the PDVSA. Such major oil companies in the world including France's Total, Britain's BP PLC and Norway's Statoihydro ASA basically agreed and have negotiated deals with Venezuela to continue as minority partners in the Venezuela's oil project. Exxon and ConocoPhillips, however, refused and withdrew from Venezuela ..."

Analysis: Venezuela-Exxon dispute incandesced, triggering oil market concerns
www.chinaview.cn 2008-02-09 14:36:14
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/09/content_7584038.htm

[northzax]

87. doesn't this just prove

that the companies were confiscated without compensation?

notice that the government owned corporations (Total and Stato.) have settled for pennies on the dollar, while the private corporations (ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco) are still waiting for compensation?

[krkaufman]

2. This Exxon...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/

Exxon shatters profit records

Oil giant makes corporate history by booking $11.7 billion in quarterly profit; earns $1,300 a second in 2007.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company, boosted in large part by soaring crude prices.

The profit topped Exxon's previous quarterly record of $10.7 billion, set in the fourth quarter of 2005, which also was an all-time high for a U.S. corporation.

[jasmine621]

9. Scum. They don't need any compensation unless they are going

to give it back to consumers in the form of lower gasoline prices.

[struggle4progress]

69. "The Exxon-Venezuela dispute .. aroused market concerns ... Prices of light sweet crude .. rose ..."

Analysis: Venezuela-Exxon dispute incandesced, triggering oil market concerns
www.chinaview.cn 2008-02-09 14:36:14
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/09/content_7584038.htm

[krkaufman]

75. And so Exxon recoups their money through ever increasing oil prices.

Time to think about windfall profits taxes...

[dipsydoodle]

3. Then maybe, just maybe,

PDVSA will cease to be one of the largest suppliers of crude oil to the United States.

Another bi-product of this may may also be that other countries will consider most carefully any future dealing with Exxon.

[burf]

11. Chavez will simply

sell his oil to someone else. In all probability, it will be China. Venezuela and China signed an oil agreement back in 2005 IIRC. I believe as part of the deal the Chinese were going to help build a refinery. Venezuelan oil is not terribly high quality and so refining it is more work. Chavez will probably ignore the court orders and just go about his business. So, as stated in an earlier post, look for more news coverage on Chavez.

[struggle4progress]

72. Citgo: Court orders won by ExxonMobil won't affect operations

Saturday, February 09, 2008; Posted: 12:09 PM

Washington, Feb 9, 2008 (EFE via COMTEX) -- ... Citgo, the U.S. subsidiary of Venezuelan state-owned oil company PDVSA, said that its refining and marketing operations will not be affected by court orders won by ExxonMobil against its parent.

"None of the orders obtained by ExxonMobil relate to Citgo and none have any impact whatsoever on Citgo's business," the Houston, Texas-based company said in a statement ...

The Venezuelan government, meanwhile, said Friday that the court orders won by ExxonMobil do not amount to the freezing of $12 billion in assets belonging to PDVSA.

"None of our assets has been frozen," Energy Minister and PDVSA President Rafael Ramirez told reporters, saying that a decision by a New York court froze an account containing $300 million in cash ...

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1084404/

[northzax]

85. more likely

is that other countries will consider most carefully any future dealing with PDVSA.

it is not ExxonMobil that violated the contract, it is PDVSA, ExxonMobil just sued for fair compensation as everyone knew they would under the terms of the contract they signed.

[annabanana]

4. Venezuela is Exxon's #1 enemy. This "nationalization"

thing might get popular with a citizenry suddenly getting services....

[Peace Patriot]

5. Chavez is using oil profits to feed, house and educate the poor.

That must be an appalling precedent for the bloody-handed oil moguls to contemplate. So Exxon Mobile ("which last week posted the largest ever year's profit by a U.S. company") wants, at minimum, to take $750 million that it didn't earn--that it arbitrarily added to the huge price that Venezuela already paid them--out of the mouths of the poor, and away from their education, and ripping off the very roofs over their heads...to what end?

And at maximum, they want...everything. All the oil. All the profits. All resources. Complete subjugation of the poor majority. Slave labor. And re-installation of fascist regimes throughout the region.

--------------------------------

"Looks like Hugo may have overplayed his hand. This could get ugly." --Rage for Order

"Hugo" is not just "Hugo." You, like the corporate news monopolies, focus on one man, one personality, when what is really happening is a widespread, peaceful, democratic revolution focused on social justice, and involving many other leaders, and millions and millions of people--the vast impoverished, brutalized, poor majority of South America, who are, at long last, coming into rightful power, through long hard civic work on transparent elections and grass roots organization.

How can the poor "overplay" their "hand"--with such rampant injustice over so many decades, inflicted by the rich fascist elites, and abetted, instigated and funded by the U.S. government and our tax dollars?

Translate what you are saying into real terms.

'The poor have overplayed their hand. This could get ugly. Get out the popcorn!' Maybe we'll see union leaders chainsawed and their body parts thrown into mass graves, as they do in U.S./Bush-funded Colombia. Maybe we'll see leftists thrown out of airplanes, and thousands tortured and 'disappeared,' as in Chile and Argentina, in times past. Maybe we'll see destabilization, rightwing "riots," toppling of democracy and bullets taking down the presidents of the poor majority: Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia, Correa in Ecuador and Kirchner in Argentina--the Bolivarian allies.

What fun. Get out the popcorn!

--------------------------------

I suggest you catch up with the whole plan--Oil War II: South America

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

It's PNAC II. Economic warfare and U.S. military intervention ("swift action") in support of "friends and allies" (fascist thugs) in South America. That's what Rumsfeld promises.

It has begun. And one of the most important components of Donald Rumsfeld's new war was to defeat the Venezuela Constitutional amendment, in Dec 07, that would have given the Chavez government more power over the central bank. Millions of our tax dollars in USAID/NED and black budgets were expended to do that. Mission accomplished.

And we thought Donald Rumsfeld was "retired." Think again.

I also suggest that you develop compassion, and abandon the callous attitude that treats deadly economic warfare against the poor, and plainly threatened military intervention by the architect of the Iraq War, as entertainments, with the movie title "Hugo."

[Demeter]

6. Your Post Deserves a Separate Thread

Then I could reccommend it for Greatest Page!

[Judi Lynn]

7. Looks as if there are still far more people around than you'd expect who actually imagine it's the

obligation of people in other countries to put aside their own well-being, and put the interests of the U.S. oligarchy first, then the European-descended, racist oligarchies in their own countries second.

Our hard-driving, corporation-serving, people-disregarding, violence-preferring right-wing Presidents have been putting corporations above all other earthly considerations for decades, to the grief, suffering, torture, mind-boggling, barbaric cruelty to, and mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans as arranged by their right-wing, US-booty kissing, US-Republican-directed, fascist dictators.

They've arranged assassinations of popularly supported, democratically elected Presidents who put their own people first. Most recently it was illuminated for millions of readers by the author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman," a man who, himself, worked enforcing the iron fisted vise grip our corporations/government held over all of Latin America.

We HAVE the examples of what happens to Presidents who look after their own countries first. This is no mystery. Only a fool would deny it. Only a fool would not see the patterns repeated throughout the Western Hemisphere.

Fortunately, it appears there are a LOT of Americans who already have seen through this deception and treachery. All that's needed for ANYONE with questions about what is going on there is to apply him/herself to some simple research, and conscious attempts to keep track of current events. It's not hard to manage.

Unfortunately, we've got a lot of simple minded tools who live by impulse, by cheap, shallow emotionalism as opposed to thought, by rumor, who live on the surface, and just won't spend the time reading, thinking shaking off the programming of corporate media. They believe anything important can be revealed to them by cable tv news, or short, fact-light wire service fodder (some of it taken directly by the stringers in other countries right from the oligarchy-owned (right-wing) tv stations!) yes, newspaper articles based on right-wing controlled local tv news programs in other countries) which gets carried by ALL the corporate news sites as the god's truth, often edited down to only 2 or 3 paragraphs.

So much more is needed. If anyone puts out the effort to learn, the information will be there. They just have to look for it themselves.

Politicians know how many slugs there are, and that makes their jobs easy for them. They can live by slogans, by sound-bites, without fear of ever being checked by our own right-wing controlled media "journalists," normally. It takes the standout writers like John Pilger and Greg Palast who really get in there and challenge things, and get the information out. There are others, of course, and they are worth their weight in gold. Because of people of conscience citizens are completely able to find out the truth which is being concealed or simply misresented by _Bush's administration and its advocates in the media.

Here's a fact which never gets ANY airing:

Venezuela is not alone with oil reserves being controlled by the government. Three-quarters of the world's proven reserves are controlled by state monopolies that bar private participation completely.

http://thomko.squarespace.com/journal/2007/6/29/exxon-conocophillips-say-no-to-worlds-largest-oil-deposits.html

[AlphaCentauri]

33. That's stealing poor people natural resources "legally" n/t

[Rage for Order]

58. Yes, Hugo is just Hugo

He is but one man. His ideas may or may not live on after he is gone; there is no way to tell at this point. At any rate, your hyperbole is way over the top:

"Maybe we'll see union leaders chainsawed and their body parts thrown into mass graves..."

And maybe we'll see babies pulled out of incubators and killed. This is a lawsuit and it will be settled monetarily, in or out of court. I said Hugo may have overplayed his hand because when he decided to unilaterally "renegotiate" the terms of VZ's contracts with various oil companies, he assumed that any company that didn't go along with his plans would have no recourse against him. He's now seeing that this is obviously not the case. Of course, I'm sure Chavez will bluster indignantly about how it is immoral for Exxon to demand fair compensation for their assets and make threats against anyone who doesn't denounce this heinous court action. Like I said, this could get ugly...and interesting. And watching the verbal barbs back and forth among Exxon and Chavez will indeed be popcorn-worthy.

[Peace Patriot]

61. Chainsawing union workers and throwing their body parts into mass graves is NOT

hyperbole. It's what the Bush Junta wants. It's what they support in Colombia with billions of our tax dollars. This has happened in Colombia, recently, as well as the torture and slaughter of thousands of union organizers, small peasant farmers, community leaders, political leftists, human rights workers and journalists, by Colombian security forces and closely associated rightwing paramilitaries, including the murders of union leaders on Chiquita and Drummond Coal lands--thoroughly documented by human rights groups, and courageous prosecutors in Colombia. These are the heinous thugs, murderers and drug traffickers that the Bushites prefer to be in charge.

It has been their goal since their failed 2002 coup attempt against Chavez--followed by their failed oil professionals' strike, followed by their failed recall election, followed by their failed assassination plot against Chavez hatched in Colombia, followed by their failed "suitcase full of money" caper, and all the other crap they have pulled using our money--to topple the peaceful, democratic, leftist government of Venezuela, kill its president, and re-install fascist regimes there, in other leftist democracies in the Andes and wherever there are significant resources that they want to loot.

And that is the goal of Exxon Mobile's economic warfare in concert with the Bush Junta, as so nakedly expressed by the "retired" Donald Rumsfeld ("swift action" in support of "friends and allies" in South America!). Harm to the poor--starvation, exposure, despair. Torture and death for leftists. That is what is occurring in neighboring Colombia now--committed by Rumsfeld's only "friends and allies" in South America--the fascist thugs in Colombia, with close ties to the Uribe government, supported by billions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

The cold, callous, calculating point of view that sees entertainment in Exxon Mobile/Donald Rumsfeld's economic warfare on the poor in Venezuela is, to say the least, shocking on a Democratic board. It is so...well...Bushitic.

And others here would do well to recognize it for what it is. The harpies of war. The "entertainment" of demonization. To be followed by the slaughter of yet more innocents.

[Rage for Order]

66. Again, dude...it's a lawsuit

Brought by a corporation against a nation. It's not chainsaws, machine guns, subversion, or any of the other things you describe. Exxon signed contracts with Venezuela's state-run oil company. Chavez didn't like the terms of those established contracts, so he decided to change the terms of them, telling Exxon and others "it's my way or the highway". He assumed the affected companies would have no recourse. As it turns out, he was wrong.

This is not economic warfare on the poor in Venezuela, it is a contract law dispute. Had Chavez honored the terms of the contracts that were in place, Exxon would not have taken legal action. You expect there to be a slaughter of innocents. I expect there to be a monetary settlement decided upon by a third-party arbitrator. If Chavez isn't happy with the results, he can withdraw from the WTO and keep all state assets within Venezuela, where they will not be freeze-able in the event that a similar situation arises in the future. Of course, he'll still have to pay Exxon their settlement from the frozen assets prior to withdrawing from the WTO.

The flippant, dismissive point of view toward established contracts and international law that sees injustice in compensating a person or corporation when their/its property is seized is, to say the least, shocking on a Democratic board. It is so...well...Bushitic. "I don't agree with the contract my country signed, so I'll ignore it and just take your property". What could be more Bushitic than that?

[Peace Patriot]

74. Rage for Order, Exxon Mobile is not a corporation. It is a floating country,

with a monarchical/fascist mode of government, and with mega-power over us, and all other peoples' who have had rightwing/fascist leaders who sold their country's assets and rights away for pennies on the dollar, in order to enrich themselves. Exxon Mobile's very existence is a violation of our sovereignty--and that of others--and its role in the Iraq War alone merits a bustup of their humongous monopoly, pulling their corporate charter and seizing their assets for the public good (those that don't belong to other countries).

I don't recognize their right to do business. They don't have rights. WE are the sovereigns here, with all the rights, as the Venezuelan people are in their country. WE say who gets a charter to do business, and who doesn't.

So your arguments are falling on deaf ears. Yes, I agree that laws and the regulatory climate generally need to be steady and consistent, and fair, for business--and, indeed, for life--to prosper, except in situations of public crisis, such as giant corporations monopolizing trade and driving small companies out of business, creating huge loss of jobs and destruction of communities, poisoning the food chain, polluting air and water, killing the planet, and starting wars in connivance with fascist regimes. In that case, busting the corporation--and making an exception of it--is the most democratic and stabilizing thing to do.

Exxon Mobile is a menace--as are a number of other similar giant "floating countries." And I don't care what happens to them. If they were to go bankrupt, good--small companies would pick up the business. If they were to lose the fight with Venezuela, excellent! The essential principle of democracy--the sovereignty of the people--would thereby be enhanced.

But, of course, the World Bank "first world" loan sharks will be unlikely to side with the sovereignty of the people against Exxon Mobile. They have said "fuck you" to the sovereignty of small countries in so many ways already.

We don't "need" Exxon Mobile. Neither does Venezuela. We would be far, far better off without them. Exxon Mobile and others like them are unaccountable, undemocratic, uncaring global corporate predators with no loyalty to anyone. To call them "businesses" is a slander on an ancient and progressive human activity--trade--making things and trading things, and communicating among cultures.

"I don't agree with the contract my country signed, so I'll ignore it and just take your property." (--your characterization of my position).

I believe that there is quite a big distinction between a person and a corporation (and also between a country and a corporation, which I will get to in minute). A person has rights, including the right to own property. A corporation has NO rights. And it most certainly has no right to permanent existence, and to perpetually own and accumulate property, wealth and power. By letting corporations acquire such "rights" (or rather claim that they have them)--which occurred almost by accident (a clerk's scribbling on a Supreme Court decision a hundred years ago)--we are now faced with these monsters, who operate as separate countries within real countries, and between them, and who are horrendously oppressive and dangerous.

So, no, I would never say that a contract between PERSONS should be ignored, and one PERSON's property taken from another PERSON. But I think it is a huge error of scale, and understanding, and basic democratic theory and procedure, to equate a person with a corporation. Small businesses, owned by a few people (I'm not sure what the limit should be), and family-owned businesses, are the only types of enterprises that should have SOME of the rights of a individual. Just for example purposes: a shoemaker owning his tools, or his workshop, or his warehouse, and passing it on to his children. Size is very, very important, as to the benefits of a business to the common good, and as to its potential harm. Ten groceries stores, fine. A thousand grocery stores, with transnational operations--not fine. A potential menace to society and to legitimate government.

A country, with whatever kind of government, has an obligation to the people who live there, that derives from the days of kings and queens, who bore a mystical relation to the land, the soil itself and its fertility, and to the people who inhabit the land. The sovereign was protector of the harvest, and thus brought prosperity to the people. This evolved into an obligation of the sovereign to see to the welfare of the people, generally. Democracies grew out of sovereignties, using the same concept and generally adhering to the same borders--defined by LAND. Our founders made this very clear--they were changing the sovereignty of King George into "the sovereignty of the people." WE, collectively, are the sovereigns of the United States of America. We exercise our sovereignty--our royal authority, if you like--and our obligation to see to each other's welfare, by voting. We vote for representatives to act as the proxies for US, the collective sovereigns and owners of the land.

Any and all governments--good, bad or indifferent--and however they are organized--feel this obligation of sovereignty. If those with the reins of power in the country are tyrannical, malfeasant, overly greedy, corrupt and/or neglectful of the people who live there--if too many people starve, if there are unnecessary, exhausting wars, etc.--the government will eventually fall. Democratic governments build in the capability of changing leaders before that happens--before the greedy get too greedy, before ruin, civil disorder and chaos descend. This is the brilliance and glory of democracy--in addition to its respect for the individual (sovereign!) person's rights. Democracies tend toward stability because of this--because they are flexible and changeable--and therefore provide the best conditions for trade. (This seems like a contradiction, but it isn't. Business generally doesn't do well in conditions of inflexibility, discontent, tyranny and threatened or actual disorder.)

And every sovereign country--whether a kingdom or a sovereignty of the people (and all the other forms, of course, such as communist governments)--have always, throughout history, until very recent times (the last 25 years--since Reagan, actually), considered business to be secondary to the welfare of the people. Decidedly secondary. In monarchies, businesses were charters of the king (or sometimes of cities). They could be dissolved with the stroke of a pen. In democracies, national governments (and, in our case, states) require all corporations to be chartered by the state, and all businesses to be licensed and regulated. These charters can be pulled and the corporation dissolved. And the charters can have requirements, for instance, to operate in the public interest.

It is not good for sovereigns (us) to exercise their power arbitrarily--creating a climate of uncertainty and unfairness. On the other hand, failure of the sovereign (us) to act to protect the welfare of the people from predatory businesses is a serious breach of the sovereign obligation. This is the true historical, traditional and proper and best order of things: the welfare of the people is primary; businesses serve the private interests of a few and their status is decidedly secondary.

However, as with the "separation of church and state," the right of habeas corpus, the protections against search and seizure, and other fundamental parts of our Constitution, we only have vestiges of our original rights and sovereignty left, under Bush--and the most important of these is our sovereignty, which has been pretty much sold to global corporate predators like Exxon Mobile, giving them perpetual ownership of large areas of land, and large portions of our resources, veto power over our laws--in fact, they write our laws--and aggregation of monopolies such as we have never seen before in history, and certainly not here, with privatemonarchical control over all basic necessities, communications and transportation--and that now includes even the military.

Hell, it even includes our voting system--the best example of all. All of our votes are now "counted"--if you can call it that--by electronic voting machines, run on 'trade secret,' proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls. When voting machines made by one of these corporations 'disappeared' 18,000 votes for Congress in Democratic areas (FL 13 in 06), and awarded the seat to the Republican by a margin of only 369 votes, the lawyers for the Democrat took the matter to court and asked to review the "trade secret" code--to try to find out what happened to those 18,000 votes. ES&S refused! They argued that their "right" to profit from our elections, with their 'trade secret" code, trumps the right of the voters to know how their votes were counted. And Bushbot judge agreed!

I mean, it is totally absurd how much power they have, and what "rights" they have invented for themselves. They took the mechanism by which we exercise our sovereignty--our right to vote--clean away, just like that. It's gone!

Further, these have become transnational entities, with NO OBLIGATION to the welfare of the people. Born here--of our resources, our infrastructure, our educational systems, our labor, and our once great legal system--they freely move millions of jobs, and our manufacturing capability, to the cheapest labor markets in foreign lands, and to countries with the least environment protections. Frankly, we would be better off under King George III than under Exxon Mobile & co. (--although it wasn't so much King George that the revolutionaries were mad at, as the East India Company--the prototype for Exxon Mobile).

Because of the bought nature of our political leadership--a direct result of the monstrous power of these global corporate predators--NO ONE is seeing to our welfare. We are little lambs among packs of wolves. Easy prey. Fair game.

Exxon Mobile is the enemy. It has no rights. It deserves no consideration. And if this situation continues much longer--of private, monarchical control of our government, of all wealth, and of basic necessities, with no obligation to the welfare of the people--we are going to find Americans blowing up their pipelines like leftist guerrillas are doing to Occidental Petroleum's pipelines in Colombia. People can only be pushed so far. From a flexible democracy, which enhanced trade, and life itself, we have become a brittle, unchangeable, inflexible tyranny. The only change that is happening is change for the worse--toward more tyranny.

All of which is to say, fuck Exxon Mobile. They have exceeded all the bounds of decency and civilization. They couldn't care less about us. Why should we--or the Venezuelans--care about them or any of their self-invented "rights"?

[northzax]

89. do you feel the same way about PDVSA?

that is a corporation, that is a multi-national oil company making record profits (theoretically, the only numbers we get are from politicians in Venezuela) why isn't it just as evil?

this is one corporation suing another over a contract dispute. big deal.

and why should it matter to anyone, especially in Venezuela? because PDVSA is a company that provides the great majority of Venezuelan revenue, and if people assume a major risk premium in doing business with it, if other companies won't sign contracts with it, it's going to be tought for Venezuela to make any money off it, right?

would you sign a developmental contract to provide technology to a company known for simply abrogating those contracts?

[boricua79]

96. hear, fucking, hear!

:applause: :woohoo:

[northzax]

86. technically

brought by a corporation against another corporation (ExxonMobil v. PDVSA) this is two giant oil companies having a contractual dispute over a couple of hundred million. PDVSA will settle, everyone knows it, except maybe Mr. Chavez.

[Xenotime]

65. Good post

[Joe Chi Minh]

79. Don't laugh, but for a split second, I thought you'd written that it was

Exxon who were using their profits to feed, house and educate the poor!

Mind you, some of the far-right head-bangers who love to infest these threads (and Guardian Talk, incidentally, because you both scare them witless) would be quite capable of making such claims.

[Thor_MN]

8. So for less than a week's profits, they want to tie up $12B?

Would most companies bother with multiple international lawsuits over a disputed amount that was less than a week's worth of profits? I have to think this is more about the message than the money...

[The Wizard]

14. Any country that wants to nationalize

its oil can expect the United States to try to overthrow its government. Iran in the 50s, Iraq in the 80s and now Venezuela. Is there a pattern here? The oil gangsters are on the verge of world domination, or as the Bush crime family likes to call it, New World Order.

[Nihil]

17. I find it interesting that this time, it appears to be "honest" ...

... i.e., the corporation is taking action on its own rather than using
the US as a proxy.

This might even be the first time a corporation has openly declared war
(albeit economic war) on a sovereign country ... normally they just get
the corrupt leaders of their tame nations to do it for them.

[Megahurtz]

91. That's It, In A Nutshell.

Pun intended.

[flashl]

18. Obtaining other country's oil the 'Iraq-way' is too expensive?

Why in a British court vs the ICC? Or, other non-biased mediator?

[boricua79]

19. what absolute bullshit

those resources belong to the Venezuelan people, and their elected leader and government should have the right to exercise government control over national territory.

If I were Venezuela, I'd stop sending oil-based products to the United States in retaliation.

Imagine the arrogance! A capitalist entity (one of the dirtiest too) wants compensation from having lost its rights to pillage the Venezuelan people's oil!

Screw Exxon!

[subsuelo]

27. Most excellent-ly stated

Thanks for that

[AlphaCentauri]

34. Pillage is behind all the interventions in latin america

[nels25]

40. He has already said the he

would stop shipping oil to the US if annoyed enough.

My guess is we do so in the near future.

[AngryAmish]

20. Venezuela is a member of the WTO: Please see edit

I'm not an expert on WTO law but one of the founding principles of these international trade agreements is you can't just nationalize an industry at will. Or you can but the compensation is automatic via international law. This is what Exxon is doing.

Believe it or not, if you believe in international law this is a good thing. Country A wants to nationalize an American business asset B. Fine. But they must pay the American business for the loss of the asset. If the American business did not like having its stuff taken, it would have to:

A: Self help remedy. Hire mercenaries to overthrow government, take it's stuff back, or
B: Get the US government to do this.

Either way people get killed.

Folks, international law is a good thing.

on edit: I quoted the wrong mechanism. This is a World Bank arbitration dispute through International Centre of Investment Dispute.


<http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=ICSIDDocRH&actionVal=ContractingStates&ReqFrom=Main>

[Peace Patriot]

47. Yup. World Bank "arbitration." First world financiers have been using the World Bank

for decades to indebt small countries at usurious rates, and force them to abandon essential, bootstrapping, social programs--education, medical care for the poor--and local development (infrastructure, roads, bridges, manufacturing facilities so they can make the machine parts for their oil industry and not have to import them), and to strip away labor and environmental protections, so that global corporate predators have free rein to loot everything and everybody. The rich elites incur these loans, rip off the money, and leave the poor to the pay the debt.

There are ruined economies, and devastated populations, all over the third world. Combined with "free trade," it's been a pogrom against the poor of the world.

And the World Bank is going to arbitrate this? Paul Wolfowitz was its last president. The U.S. has the sole right to appoint the World Bank president! George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the oil/war profiteer buds have their fingers all over the World Bank. This is an absolutely disgusting thing that is happening here. And it is war!

Not incidentally, the Chavez government has led the region in practical initiatives toward regional independence and self-determination, and one of their initiatives, the Bank of the South, is driving the World Bank loan sharks out of South America. WB profiteering has fallen from 80% of WB revenues to some fantastic low, like 1%, over the last few years, in South America. The South Americans prefer regional loans, in a bank that they are a part of. They prefer loans that support their other goals--social justice, and regional development.

This is a war of the fatcat first world billionaires against the poor!

Do I need to repeat this?

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

It's all there: economic squeeze, (covert destabilization), "swift" U.S. military intervention in support of "friends and allies." Donald Rumsfeld and the Bushites have no "friends and allies" in South America except coup-plotting fascist thugs in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and other democracies, and the state security forces, rightwing paramilitary forces and U.S. military (including Blackwater) forces in Colombia. Ecuador is kicking the U.S. military out. They are persona non grata's, almost everywhere. They want to act fast, while their "unitary executive" in still in office, and before the U.S. military base agreement with Ecuador expires, to re-install fascist regimes in these countries. They want the oil, first and foremost.

Ecuador and Venezuela border Colombia, where the bulk of U.S. forces, paramilitaries and mercenaries are located. Venezuela and Ecuador have the most oil. Both are members of OPEC. Both have leftist (majorityist) governments. I had thought this would start in Bolivia (where a fracture in the country between the rich rural provinces, where the gas reserves are, and the poor urban areas, has been instigated). I had thought they wanted to draw Venezuela into a shooting war there, in support of Evo Morales's government. And it may still occur that way, as to military intervention. But first they have to take down Venezuela's economy--it is the linchpin of the Andes region, and, for instance, supported Argentina in getting out of ruinous World Bank debt and on the road to full recovery. Economic warfare against Venezuela would weaken, and could destroy, its allies--and could devastate the entire continent, including the Chavez government's other allies (Brazil, Uruguay, Nicaragua).

The war on South America has begun. There is nothing normal or businesslike about this Exxon Mobile move. They were paid, and paid well, for all their infrastructure. This is political and it is preliminary to toppling the Chavez government, and the hopes of its millions of poor people, and the democracy they have so fervently and beautifully established--and the alliance of all the leftist (majorityist) governments in the Andes region.

Don't let the anti-Chavez posters downplay this Rumsfeldian freezing of Venezuela's assets. That is an act of war. It is supported by the Bush Junta. And we are very likely going to see our sons and daughters in the military dying in the mountains and jungles of the Andes region, on behalf of Exxon Mobile, before the year is out.

And both Democratic candidates will very likely support it. There is no voice for fairness, for justice and for democracy for South America in this political campaign, and virtually none anywhere in our corrupt political establishment.

Oil War II is here! And, with our rigged elections, there is nothing we can do. Nothing! All we can do is hope and pray that the South Americans are strong, and stay united. There is much evidence that they are, and will. But the forces against them--as we have seen in this despicable action--have bottomless resources, stolen from us and from our treasury, and are utterly ruthless war criminals. They slaughtered over a million people in Iraq, to get their oil, and the carnage is still coming. What won't they do to the poor of South America--or try to?

[AngryAmish]

48. Venezuela is a signatory to the treaty allowing this

They don't have to participate if they don't want to. However, if they don't participate foreign investment is unlikely in the future. Bad comes with the good.

[Peace Patriot]

53. Yeah, and we have a treaty that forbids torturing prisoners, with the Bush

Junta defending itself with legalisms, and twisted words, no doubt with an eye toward avoiding prosecution. We have a Constitution--higher law than any treaty--which they have repeatedly violated with impunity. Florida has election laws--the Bushites take it to the bought and paid for (or terrorized?) Supreme Court, and the law vanishes for the little guy--the voter. There are valid uses of legal processes, and invalid ones. And there are decent ones and indecent ones. This one couldn't be more indecent--with the Bush Junta having control of the World Bank. And can you just imagine the World Bank ruling in Venezuela's favor, and supporting Venezuela's sovereignty, over this global corporate predator? Just try to imagine it.

Yes, you could THEORETICALLY say that the arbitration process gives Venezuela a voice, where it might not have one, and possibly even prevents wars, but I don't think that is the case here. There are too many signs that Rumsfeld & co. mean war, and this is a preliminary, aimed at destabilizing the country prior to direct interference. They will use any tool at hand to topple Chavez, install a fascist regime and get the oil. For Godssakes, look at all the crap they did preliminary to the Iraq War--the first Gulf War, destroying Iraq's army and airforce, "sanctions" for 12 years, to devastate the country economically, twisted words and lies of every kind--to the Senate, to the House, to the UN, to recalcitrant allies, to the American people, strong-warming and bullying small countries to form their absurd "coalition," and on and on. They don't give a crap about any laws, treaties or legal processes. They take what they want, using any and all tools at hand, and make up lies afterward. ("Iraqi freedom"--good god!).

This move is neither clean nor a stand-alone action (merely a business lawsuit). It is part of a long series of actions going way back to the foiled 2002 coup attempt against Chavez, and including a potentially ruinous oil professionals' strike instigated by Exxon Mobile and brethren. To topple Chavez. That is their goal. And disenfranchise his supporters (70% approval rating; very popular in other S/A countries as well, and among other leaders.) And more recently it follows a long, virulent series of demonizations in the press, and massive spending of USAID/NED and covert budget money.

The CIA had one silly caper, recently, with a suitcase full of $800,000 in U.S. currency, carried by some rich Miami agent guy into the airport in Buenes Aires, with the Rovebot U.S. Attorney in Miami now claiming that the money was intended to be from the Venezuelan government to the campaign of Chavez ally, Cristina Fernandez Kirchner, who was running for President of Argentina. It was a "divide and conquer" plot, trying to sow ill will between the two governments. Didn't work. They're on to this stuff down in South America now. But it just shows the amount of money they're spending, and the effort, just to get a headline or two that disses Chavez in some way and in the hope that it causes dissension. $800,000, plus expenses, just for that.

It is not reasonable to see this Exxon Mobile action outside the Bush Junta context of destroying democracy in the Andes region and grabbing the oil. That is what they do. The money at issue is worthless to Exxon Mobile. It is spare change to them. They want Venezuela's assets frozen--billions of dollars frozen (and apparently haven't succeeded in that yet) and their economy crashed, to make Venezuela and its democratic neighbors (with oil) easy pickin's like Iraq. (Big oil find in Argentina, by the way--recently.)

The process itself is not only indecent, and a stacked deck, Exxon Mobile's purpose is not justice. It is conquest. And it appears to me that they still have Donald Rumsfeld designing their war strategies, and the Bush Junta fully behind them. That's what it's been about all along. Serving Exxon Mobile first, and the war profiteers, then the other corporations. Exxon Mobile doesn't have any right to be a monopoly. They should be busted down and broken up, and their assets (that don't belong to other countries) seized for the public good. After what they've done, we should be pulling their corporate charter. They have no right to do business. They do business by charter and license here, and elsewhere (if the country has any sense). Chavez's 60% is quite reasonable. His government would be justified in taking much more. A country's resources SHOULD be used to benefit the people who live there. And when they aren't--and when "organized money" (as FDR called it) gets totally out of control as it is now, and loots us and drags us into war--we don't have to take it. Government is about sovereignty. Businesses SERVE sovereignly--in our case, and as with other democracies, the sovereignty of the people.

We are king here--our collective we--not Exxon Mobile. That is the foundation of our country--which was at one time the hope of the world. It is the basis of our rights. The people are sovereign. Not rich men, not business consortiums, not lords of the land. We the people. Venezuela is asserting this fundamental democratic principle. So should we--and do our best to get these dirty rotten bastards off other peoples' backs.

[northzax]

110. in one thing you are wrong

We have a Constitution--higher law than any treaty--

I bring you Article VI of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

that specifically states that treaties, once ratified, shall be the supreme law of the land on par with the Constitution, and notwithstanding anything contrary in the Constitution. if the Constitution says one thing, and a ratified treaty says another, you go with the treaty.

sorry.

[inMD]

21. Hugo didn't overplay anything

He took over a private enterprise that didn't give Venezuela enough $$$ in compensation...ie. he didn't like the deal and thought he could do better for the country if it was run by the country.

All Exxon is doing is trying to get compensation for the infrastructure and equipment investment that was taken when Hugo took over their business. They are entitled to compensation for that and they will get it.

Both sides of this argument are being so melodramatic.

[Bacchus39]

26. agreed

more from the article:

"The largest U.S. company sought the asset freeze to guarantee repayment should it win arbitration over the Cerro Negro heavy oil project.


Exxon -- which last week posted the largest ever year's profit by a U.S. company -- said on Thursday it has received court orders in Britain, the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles each freezing up to $12 billion in assets of Venezuela state oil firm PDVSA. An Exxon spokeswoman said the total that could be frozen worldwide was $12 billion.

Exxon also won a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in December freezing more than $300 million belonging to PDVSA, seeking to guarantee repayment should it win the arbitration."

[subsuelo]

29. "All Exxon is doing ...."

poor little Exxon trying to get their things back

What do they need it for, to steal from someone else?

Nope sorry they stole from the people of Venezuela for too long.

[Bacchus39]

35. the assets are frozen, they were not given to Exxon

if the arbitration determines that Exxon merits more compensation, some of those assets may be forfeited to Exxon. If Venezuela prevails then the assets I assume would be unfrozen and retained by Venezuela.

if I were Ven., I would be arguing that environmental costs and clean up associated with the Exxon operations should be factored into any compensation package, if that is the case. That is in addition to any insufficient fees or royalties paid to Venezuela to conduct their oil operations there, again if that is the case.

[dipsydoodle]

37. A note here confirms what you say

US oil giant Exxon Mobil has said it has won a court order to freeze up to $12bn (£6bn) in Venezuelan assets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7233964.stm

Yes - assets are frozen preventing their disposal or so it would appear anyway.Exxon may have to prove that profits to date have not covered their total outlay.

[inMD]

36. Your argument will not hold water in court

I posted that people were being melodramatic and I get a response filled with more of the same. If you have any real argument as to why a company does not deserve compensation for property taken by a government entity that would apply to this case, please post it.

Whatever agreement Venezuela had with Exxon previous was agreed upon by the 2 parties involved and will not figure into any decision UNLESS it is shown that Exxon broke that deal by (say) not paying the royalties agreed upon. However, that has not been alleged and so will not figure into any decision.

Obviously, Venezuela can make more money out of this by cutting out Exxon, so that's what Chavez did. Probably a brilliant move. But they still have to compensate for the infrastructure/assets that they took from Exxon.

Say it's your house being taken by your state to put in a road, they owe you just compensation for the property.

[subsuelo]

39. Not in a court that favors theft from the Venezuelan people, no.

Venezuelan resources should benefit the people of Venezuela. Exxon has stolen the profits from them for too long. The people never agreed to Exxon being there, and now the people (represented by Hugo Chavez) are taking it back.

In addition, you wrote "Say it's your house being taken by your state to put in a road, they owe you just compensation for the property."

but this not a fair analogy. The analogy there would go like this: "Say it's your house you built on land that you have no right to, that was eventually taken back by the rightful owners of the land. Do you then get compensation for that house?"

[Bacchus39]

41. that would depend upon what agreement was made with Venezuela

an agreement with any previous administration or even if it were an agreement earlier in the Chavez administration will be taken into account.

I doubt the court is going to ignore any previous agreement between Venezuela and Exxon.

[AlphaCentauri]

44. The court should focus on how those agreements were obtained

if they were signed by corrupt members of government they should be invalid.

[Bacchus39]

46. absolute, could be a factor, kick backs and bribes and the like could nullify the agreement

but upon further review I am not sure that royalties and environmental costs will play a factor, nor previous arrangements with the government.

It APPEARS what is happening is Ven made Exxon a minority partner. Exxon may be seeking compensation for the investment already made.

I wonder if essentially what is happening is Exxon is doing all the work and investment, yet Ven gets the majority profits.

also, it is unclear if actual property or infrastructre was expropriated, or Exxon is trying to recoup the costs of the investments already made by keeping a larger share.

[The Croquist]

54. If the court overturns valid contracts the law means nothing

I'm just a rookie here but you just can't invalidate contracts because times have changed. I don't know when these documents were signed but obviously oil prices have soared since then. If any entity, government or corporation, can invalidate contracts because they don't like the current circumstances there is no law and there is no business and business is not the enemy.

After the Iranian revolution the Ayatollah invalidated foreign contracts. Ask the average Iranian how that's working out. The country is still paying cash for everything.

If somebody mugged George Soros and stole his wallet would you cheer because he is rich? Just because Soros is rich doesn't make it OK to steal from him. In essence Venezuela has been accused of stealing from Exxon's stockholders. That includes pension funds that manage the retirement funds of millions of individuals around the world.


Let's say that Exxon had agreed to pay Venezuela 100 million dollars a year as a lease for drilling rights for 30 years and pay Venezuela 15 dollars a barrel. After 3 years of drilling either they found no oil or oil was trading at 10 dollars a barrel. Do you think they should be allowed to invalidate the contract?

[AlphaCentauri]

59. contracts should be invalidated when circumstances have changed

Let's just clarified that Exxon did not want to sign a new contract (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1220-04.htm ) other oil companies agree to a new contract without a problem so Venezuela is not stealing Exxon anything, Exxon is refusing to negotiate with Venezuela, Exxon and other companies signed the contracts in the 1990's before Chavez was elected. Else Exxon does not care about the poor people in Venezuela or Colombia see:( http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Company/exxon01.htm ) are they in court for those violations? of course not, they don't make contracts with people, they do it with corrupt government officials.

Something about Venezuelan oil and corrupt dictators http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Juan+Vicente+G%C3%B3mez&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1

[The Croquist]

62. It doesn't matter if Chavez was in power in 1990 or not

Bush was not in power when the US Constitution was ratified. Does that mean that he shouldn't have to abide by it?
Was there a clause in the contract that says "If there is a change in leadership all contracts are null and void"?

The fact that circumstances changed is besides the point. If oil prices went down would you think that Exxon deserved a break?

[AlphaCentauri]

63. the constitution may be a contract with the people but not with corporations

The constitution can be change on peoples will, why not a corporate contract based on greed.

[The Croquist]

77. The US Constitution was designed to be amendable.

If it hadn't been designed that way we couldn't change it. Contracts can be designed in the same manor. Buyout clauses are used regularly.
Obviously Exxon and Venezuela either disagree on what the terms of the contract or one party is simply not honoring it. The courts will get to decide on who is correct.

[AlphaCentauri]

95. well Exxon signed a contract with a corrupt government, that should make it invalid

[The Croquist]

104. Every government in the world is corrupt

when a new government takes its place. The basic issue here is that the Venezuelan government doesn't want to live up to it's agreements. The fact that they are now threatening Nestle Chocolate for the crime of paying in advance is evidence that there is an emerging pattern.

If you can show that Exxon bribed somebody you may have a case but so far I haven't seen any evidence regarding that. That's for the courts to decide.

[northzax]

88. I agree

they should abrogate the contract and give ExxonMobil back all the technology they paid for and developed. seems fair, right? let's just pretend the whole thing never happened. Of course, then PDVSA doesn't have a heavy oil upgrading system at Cerro Negro for what is currently free.

[AlphaCentauri]

97. Then Exxon should be getting back 700 millions not 12 billions

[The Croquist]

105. No it doesn't seem fair.

Exxon and Venezuela signed a contract. Exxon signed the deal expecting to make money on it. That was the same reason that Venezuela signed the deal. If they could have done it cheaper then Exxon they never would have made the deal. They could have insisted that the contract was just to build the facilities and turn them over to Venezuela but they chose not to. If Exxon balked they could have signed with another corporation. Now that it looks like Venezuela wants to break the deal.

You may want to ask why Venezuela is having trouble feeding it's own people while they have 12 billion in assets overseas.

If on the other hand Exxon was expecting to lose money on the deal do you think that should Venezuela pay them what they put in and let them walk away from the deal?

[northzax]

108. and, of course

when ExxonMobil signed this deal, oil was selling for $10-15/bbl, not the 75-100/bbl we see today. trust me, if oil was still at $10/bbl, PDVSA wouldn't be thinking they could run this facility (which, based on the reports it will be down for several months for 'repairs' less than one year into PDVSA operation, seems like they can't)

[Joe Chi Minh]

80. Even the kinds of capitalist traitors who customarily sell their country down the river,

to the US empire (or indeed to each other via privatizations of public assets), to their own vile profit and aggrandisement.

[inMD]

51. The courts will not agree with you, again...

your analogy is not correct. Mine is closer and here is why...

Under agreement with Venezuela, Exxon has a right to build on the land in exchange for money, lease of land and royalties on oil production. There has been no allegation by Venezuela that Exxon failed in any part of this agreement, they just wanted to dissolve the relationship so they could capture the portion of profits that went to Exxon. No problem with doing that, but they have to compensate for what they have taken.

Say you bought property and build your house in Maryland. When you bought land and built in Maryland you must abide by the laws of Maryland and pay Maryland property taxes. (In the real case Exxon/Venezuela, the agreement is written and signed by both parties). If Maryland takes the land for a road, they must fairly compensate you for the land you bought and your house you built. Now to bring in your assertion that the our builder did something illegal, such as not pay the property taxes, then the court will take that up. Likely outcome is the state reimburses you the land+house minus property taxes due them. But in your example, the state cannot sieze the property and say, "well we didn't tax you enough so we take it and give you no compensation"....the courts would not only find in your favor but penalize the state heavily.

[conspirator]

22. FU*CK exxon FILTHY CORPORATION. I guess they need the money for the CEO´s bonuses n/t

[KansDem]

23. Let's see: Bush thumbs his nose at international courts, yet...

Exxon filed for arbitration in September with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.

...Exxon can file with international courts and win judgments? :crazy:

Maybe Hugo doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of "international courts..."

[Bacchus39]

25. but if the countries that hold Venezuela's assets do recognize the jurisdiction

then....

[KansDem]

30. So, while the US Congress may not want to hold Bush accountable for his crimes...

...then an international court, which he does not recognize, can freeze his assets if those assets sit in banks in countries that do recognize the court's jurisdiction?

No doubt this is a moot point since I'm sure the BFEE have made it their business to put their money in BFEE-friendly countries who, coincidently, do not recognize the jurisdiction of international courts.

Perhaps Hugo should have done some research...

[Bacchus39]

32. I would assume that would be up to those countries who might possess Bush's assets

n/t

[AngryAmish]

52. In this case, Venezuela has volunteered to be under this court's jurisdiction

via treaty.

[Doctor_J]

38. When the people retake the world,

we are going to need some real inspiration to figure out how to get over on NewsCorp, Exxon, and AIG.

[rayofreason]

43. So much for intelligent analysis.

Ok, I know that I will get flamed big time for this post, but having read the posts on this thread I think it is time for data and reasoned analysis to intrude on this populist Exxon-bashing-Chavez-loving-fest.

First, many people on this thread have referred to Exxon's profits as somehow evil, suggesting for instance that Exxon should give money back to the poor that it is somehow screwing over. Well, let's look at some uncomfortable facts. Sure Exxon had record profits, but what about taxes? Did you know that in 2007 Exxon also had a record Federal income tax bill of $27 billion? Did you know that Exxon alone paid more Federal income tax than the entire bottom 50% of all individual taxpayers? Exxon's gross tax rate on profits was 41.6%. Moreover, those profits were taxed a second time as individual taxpayers paid tax on any dividend income they received. I know that this won't sit well with those who want to see big corporations as monsters while they ignore the fact that that corporations and the capitalist economy they represent is what makes possible the incredible material wealth and quality of life for vast numbers of people world wide at a level that far exceeds what even royalty had in antiquity.

So if you want to learn abut the real deal, follow this link-

http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion?source=side_bar_editors_picks

Second, Chavez is an idiot who will drive Venezuela into the ground. His expropriation of Exxon property is theft, pure and simple. Exxon built facilities with Exxon money. Of course it was to make profit - otherwise Exxon would not build the stuff. But it was Exxon money all the same. How would Venezuela extract and sell its oil if it did not have the infrastructure to do it? Why didn't they build the stuff themselves? Could it be that they did not the the money or know-how to do it? In which case, without Exxon there would be no oil wealth for Chavez to pass around. So now Chavez is going to try to steal Exxon property. If he wants to make the oil business 100% Venezuelan, fine - he can buy the infrastructure from those who own it, then all future profits will be Venezuela's. But no, Chavez has an idiotic socialist mentality the sees profit as "evil". He is going to grab the property, to the thunderous applause of similarly wooly-thinking individuals.

So, seeing this, who in the future would want to invest any money in Venezuela? Not anybody who has an ounce of sense. Let's say a copper deposit is discovered in Venezuela. Would I build a facility to extract it? Hell no - I would not trust Chavez as far as I could spit and I would not risk my capital, even if the deal could be very profitable. I would instead invest my money in a country were the rule of law prevails, even if the return on the investment is less. So who loses? Venezuelans lose because the jobs that would have been there from the mine are not there, the training that those who build the mine would get (which allows them to get the know-how to build their own) does not happen, Venezuela looses the tax that would have been levied on the incomes, it loses it share of the profits that would have been part of the deal, so there is less money to help folks at the bottom, etc. But that is not all. Since the capital went into a less productive investment elsewhere the global economy loses because one bit of it was not as productive as it could have been. And what if the capital I am talking about comes from a union pension plan? Then the workers are seeing a smaller rate of return on their savings and so have less disposable income. And that affects the people from whom they buy goods and services. And so it goes and goes and goes.

Chavez - the gift of stupidity that just keeps on giving.

[subsuelo]

50. thanks for the Fox News spin

The responsibility for driving Venezuela into the ground lies in corporations like Exxon. Chavez just represents the will of the people. (Would be nice to see the day when Americans have a leader representing their will, btw).

Exxon put their property there against the consent of the people. The people are the only rightful beneficiaries, not Exxon. And now that the people are taking their things back, they are accused of stealing? No. Exxon stole, now the people get back what was taken from them.

And btw the whole capitalism bit is pure fantasy: "the capitalist economy they represent is what makes possible the incredible material wealth and quality of life for vast numbers of people world wide" -- you forgot to mention "on the backs of poor people" in that sentence. Poor people like the Venezuelan people that are claiming their rights back. Sorry to those that have a problem with the poor getting their just due. I understand the capitalist really hates that.

[The Croquist]

55. I agree that Exxon is probably not wrong here but...

I've seen Exxon tax numbers and I've wondered how much of the tax that Exxon pays is gasoline tax that they simply collect at the pump and pass on to the government. I know that the numbers you stated were purely income tax but other sources include; withheld taxes such as state and federal gas tax, social security, medicare, employee's withheld income tax and other taxes that they simply act as a tax collector for the government.

[YankmeCrankme]

60. Thanks for that "reasoned" analysis.

"Second, Chavez is an idiot who will drive Venezuela into the ground."

"But no, Chavez has an idiotic socialist mentality the sees profit as "evil"."

The fact is the oil corporations had finagled an agreement before Chavez that gave them 90% of the revenues and the government 10%. Chavez felt that was blatantly unfair and forced them to take 50%. Whoa, it's like they're working for nothing. I mean 50% of billions of dollars after decades of almost all of it is so unfair.

They were lucky to have gotten any offer of compensation after decades of ripping off the Venezuelan people. I'm sure they were exempt from any laws while they were at it, not to mention the amount of corruption they helped support in the previous administrations.

"So, seeing this, who in the future would want to invest any money in Venezuela? Not anybody who has an ounce of sense."

And the insinuation that he doesn't provide any profit for investors. Yeah, China isn't going to get anything for investing in the country. I'm sure they're doing it out of altruistic reasons. It just doesn't seem like he's going to be giving the store away like previous government officials. I hope he sticks to that too.

[AlphaCentauri]

64. "Federal income tax bill of $27 billion?"

Does it mean they paid that bill or they use loop holes to avoid paying that bill?

Chevron and Shell have agree with Venezuela, what is wrong in that picture?

[northzax]

102. actually, ChevronTexaco remains in negotiations with PDVSA

over compensation. Shell and Total have government ownership stakes at home that didn't want an international incident, so they took pennies on the dollar to continue operations. Exxon and chevron pulled out of venezuela entirely.

[northzax]

109. CORRECTION

my apologies, I wrote that ChevronTexaco remains in negotiations. I meant to say ConocoPhillips.

[Judi Lynn]

45. Found an article written in Spanish at a Venezuela tv station's website

Ran it through the google translation tool, which seems to be good enough to give you the general idea:

President of Pdvsa:''We do not have the assets frozen''
Mostra _ 08/02/08 - 10:06 CCS | send | print

Ramirez said it is''false''that the American Exxon Mobil has confiscated 12 billion dollars to Pdvsa, because what he achieved was an interim measure that can be reversed with the allegations that the present legal defense of the Venezuelan State.

The Minister of Energy and Petroleum of Venezuela, Rafael Ramirez, denied that the state Petroleos de Venezuela (Pdvsa), has any frozen assets, as announced on Thursday, Margaret Ross, spokesman for the American oil giant Exxon Mobil.

"We do not have the assets frozen or frozen accounts of any amount," said Ramirez at the same time clarified that the only amount that is has been blocked by the order of $ 300 million, by a petition submitted by Exxon Mobil against defunct Pdvsa Hill Black, which was approved by a court in the United States.

Ramirez, who is also president of Pdvsa, clarified that the $ 12 billion that Exxon Mobil said having succeeded to Caracas confiscate part of a transitional measure.

"That is completely untrue (...) we do not have any decision in any court, it is only an interim measure (...), it is a temporary measure while Pdvsa presents its case," explained Ramirez, while confirming that these failures do not affect "for nothing" when cash flow or the operation of Pdvsa.

He stressed that the root of the "conflict" with Exxon Mobil is that the company wants to "put on the table" amounting to indenmización higher than it deserves for the nationalization.

He recalled that this is not the first time that Venezuela faces a legal dispute therefore should not cause alarm this new process.

"In the past arbitrations face of the company Enel against our country on the subject of this arbitration orimulsión and was won by the Republic", and recounted allegations that the applicant Exxon Mobil has not "respected the terms of the arbitration but wanted Pressure legal action against our national enterprise. "

On Thursday, a spokesman for the American oil company Exxon Mobil said that the group obtained court orders in several international courts to freeze some 12 billion dollars in assets of the state Petroleos de Venezuela (Pdvsa), as part of a lawsuit Arbitration began last September by the extractor against the Venezuelan State, which was withdrawn from extraction project Gaza Orinoco (southeast), which the government nationalized energy to protect the sovereignty of the South American country.

The signing was "of the High Court in London (United Kingdom) an order freezing against Pdvsa, which prohibits the government dispose of its assets in the world for up to 12 billion dollars", had assured Ross, officer of Exxon Mobile .

According to the corporation, the largest in the world in the oil industry, tried in the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles and the United States, also failed in their favor and froze assets of Pdvsa in their jurisdictions.

The decree with the force of law nationalization of the rich Orinoco Gaza, which produces about 500 thousand barrels of crude oil a day, was signed last March by the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, but began to govern the 1 May 2007.

"This is the true nationalization of our natural resources," Chavez exclaimed on that occasion, to criticize the opening of the 90 oil from the Venezuelan industry.

The legislation stipulates that Pdvsa should have a shareholding of at least 60 percent in partnerships through joint ventures.

Of the thirteen private companies for years enriched their coffers with oil of the Orinoco, only two, both Americans, chose to leave rather than see the extraction decreased its economic benefits: Exxon Mobil and Conoco Phillips.

By contrast, Total (France), Statoil (Norway), Chevron (United States) and BP (Britain) agreed that the portion of the state company Pdvsa become a majority in the co-Orinoco oil companies.

Curiously, it appears Exxon Mobil signed the first memorandum of understanding that will enable Venezuela to assume the majority shareholder of the projects.

"Of the thirteen companies that are involved, ten of them have signed the documents," said the minister last April Ramirez.

The total withdrawal of the two companies occurred after the expropriation of their property by Pdvsa in June last year. The extraction went to his discussions with state couples Pdvsa demanding compensation.

But Exxon was not satisfied with the Venezuelan proposal and ignoring the commitment of Venezuelan indenmización, September 6 introduced a demand for arbitration before the International Center for the settlement of disputes relating to investments (Ciadi), which is headquartered in Washington and depends World Bank. "We are disappointed that the discussions have not been successful," said the spokesman for Exxon, Len D'Eramo, the agency AFP in September 2007.

"Exxon Mobil introduced an arbitration against the Republic against the Ciadi, an agency of the World Bank (...) Faced with this situation, we of course have come to constitute the Committee arbitration, the arbitrators have been appointed both the Exxon Mobil and the Venezuelan side and we are waiting to be constituted (...) to start the trial that we are confident will serve the interests of the Republic ", explained this Friday Ramirez.

With the nationalization of the Gaza del Orinoco, Pdvsa increased its active participation and consolidated as a major partner in agreements with transnationals.

Failure is an American strategy to topple Chavez

The American sociologist James Petras, described the alleged freezing of assets of the state Petroleos de Venezuela (Pdvsa) announced by the private oil Exxon Mobil as "an attempt to overthrow the government of President Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and" reverse policies independents on the control of oil. "

In conversation with exclusive Mostra, Petras believed that the legal action undertaken by Exxon Mobil will be followed by other similar that will be introduced by the other transnational corporations that are exploiting oil in Venezuela, because everything is part of a plan to achieve "renegotiate everything the proposed nationalization of oil, "particularly with the support of the United States.

"Exxon Mobil is the surface of the problem (...) beyond other oil and other interests will keep up," he added.

"This is not a simple act economic (...). It is part of the U.S. strategy to weaken the government (...), it is a policy of aggression to replace the elected government," he explained.

In addition, the American scholar added several more items to the agenda of Washington "generate discontent on social policy Chavez, generate economic demands within the country such as the shortages of basic foods and from the outside extrangular" economy.

Petras adviritió that Pdvsa should rethink the distribution of their savings abroad because if not making an intelligent decision "will suffer additional blows."

"Pdvsa can not rely on the outside to maintain their income," he added.

Mostra - Efe - Afp - Reuters - Abn / mm - RN

http://www.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/nota/24187/presidente-de-pdvsa-no-tenemos-activos-congelados/

Here's the google translation tool for Spanish to English:
http://translate.google.com/translate_t?langpair=es|en

[Peace Patriot]

49. Two articles of interest: It's only $300 million cash that is frozen (says a Venezuelan

spokesman--AP quote), and what the dispute is specifically about. The first is written by AP's Fabiola Sanchez, so that take that for what it's worth. The second is from back in September, when Exxon Mobile walked out of talks with Venezuela, and went running to the World Bank for help, because Venezuela wanted the national oil company to hold 60% shares in the oil ventures (more education, medical care, musical training, potable water, housing that doesn't slide off the hills of Caracas in heavy rains, and other help for the poor majority). The second article contains a greedy little "Manifest Destiny" quote from the manager of the Hodges Fund in Dallas, to wit:

"Resistance Applauded

"'I'm glad to see them (Exxon Mobile) do it,' said Don Hodges... 'You don't know what the outcome will be, but you'd rather see them resist it than just lay down and say, `Help yourself to it.'" (emphasis added)
http://oilsandstruth.org/hugo-knows-value-his-tar

-----

Venezuelans "help themselves" to their own oil? Gee, what a concept!

I'm also enjoying the concept of Exxon Mobile putting up "resistance". It sounds almost..uh...revolutionary. Kind of Newt Gingrinchy. ("'Don't tread on me'--you starving little brown baby! Gimme all your candy!"

-----

(Here's the wholly untrustworthy AP's report. Lord knows what the Venezuelan actually said.)

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/Venezuela_Exxon.html

"Venezuela denies $12 billion frozen in Exxon Mobil court orders
By FABIOLA SANCHEZ
Associated Press Writer

"CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuela's oil minister on Friday denied that the state oil company has had $12 billion in assets frozen by court orders as Exxon Mobil Corp. seeks to challenge the nationalization of an oil project in the South American country.

"'They don't have any asset frozen. They only have frozen $300 million' in cash, Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez told reporters.

"Ramirez called it a 'transitory measure' while state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA, presents its case in New York and London.

"Ramirez, who is also PDVSA's president, accused Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil of employing 'judicial terrorism' and said the attempts in court ahead of planned arbitration 'don't have any direct affect over our operations, over our assets.'"

---------

We're all familiar with "judicial terrorism"--like in military tribunals, and arrest, detention and torture without trial; or like James Baker taking the matter out of Florida voters' hands to the Supreme Court; or, say, the Department of "Justice" prosecuting Democrats on nothing charges just before elections. Now we're seeing it in the international arena, as Exxon Mobile terrorizing the poor of Venezuela to extort more money from them, and to crash their economy so their will can be overturned and a more Exxon Mobile-friendly government installed. I agree with Ramirez, if that's what he said.

[struggle4progress]

70. Venezuela denies PDVSA asset freeze (Xinhua)

... "We do not have any asset frozen," said Venezuelan Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez who is also PDVSA's president.

But he admitted that 300 million dollars of PDVSA assets are "temporarily awaiting court decisions from New York." ...

"PDVSA is operating at 100 percent and is exporting oil all over the world," said Ramirez, calling it a "propagandistic maneuver" by Exxon Mobil which is "against us to create panic." ...

After failing to reach an agreement over its revised contract when PDVSA announced it would increase its stake to a majority, Exxon Mobil walked away from projects worth up to 2.3 billion U.S.dollars in Venezuela's Orinoco belt last year ...

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/09/content_7583947.htm

[struggle4progress]

71. Sentence against Venezuela seeks to create crisis in the country (ABN via Mathaba)

Caracas, Feb 8 ABN.- ...

'They are creating terror because that sentence could impede to the country carry out important functions in favor of the people. With that attitude, they unmasked themselves as enemies of the Venezuelan people,' <Roberto Hernandez, first National Assembly's vice president> said.

'They are the same people that promoted the oil sabotage that caused damages up to $20 billion,' he added.

Hernández said that Pdvsa has to exercise all the resources provided by the national and international laws in its defense ...

http://mathaba.net/news/?x=581285

[northzax]

107. 60% you say?

but PDVSA already owned 57.5% of the Cerro Negro project. since PDVSA offered ExxonMobil $500m (in unprocessed heavy crude) for their share, this is either one of the most valuable companies in Latin America (if 2.5% is worth $500m, then the whole thing is worth $20b) or they actually wanted more than the 2.5% it took to get to 60%.

so that kind of bears out ExxonMobil's claim that PDVSA wanted the entire thing, right?

[bluestdogest]

56. "Hugo overplayed his hand" is the understatement of the century.

Now that the world's economy is slowing, Venezuelans will discover the magnitude of their blunder.

The intelligent ones already have.

[Joe Chi Minh]

81. While the rest of the world will be prospering, eh? Only the second part of your username

makes sense. What are you doing here on DU?

[libodem]

67. I hate those damn greedy f-ing oil companies.

Hence my sig line which I enjoy reminding you all to read, occasionally.

[McHatin]

73. Those oil companies

are really no different from any other company that operates for profit. They are no more "greedy" or anything else. It's just that the price of oil in the world has gone up through increased demand in Asia and elsewhere, so they are gaining more profits. Gasoline is still relatively cheap compared to other products with inflation taken into account. What's the price of pop per gallon? Or beer? And oil is not an infinite resource and also pollutes. If anything, it should be more expensive than it is now.

Chavez is not helping the poor in his country by nationalizing oil companies. The efficiency of those oil fields will go way down and when the infrastructure needs updating, they will be poorly equipped for it. Increasing oil prices could potentially help the poor of Venezuela since profit from oil sales increases, but cutting the efficiency of oil production can only hurt those profits.

[Joe Chi Minh]

82. No, I suppose they're not more greedy. Just stronger. Do you live in

a different moral dimension for the rest of us? Love the way you dismissed Exxon's greed on the ground that everybody else does it! Poor multinationals. So misunderstood.

Since when were the poor of Venezuela helped before Hugo. The worst that could conceivably (inconceivable though it is, in reality) happen, is a return of the country to the murderous predatory care of some of S. America's finest, the Beasts of the Earth.

[Judi Lynn]

83. Interesting looking back to 1989, knowing we heard NOTHING when Venezuelan U.S-pleasing President

Carlos Andres Perez raised the cost of transportation for the poor of Venezuela, making it wildly expensive for them to use public buses to get to work, grocery stores, etc., and they rushed into the streets to protest, where he had his military police gun them down in the massacre which became known as "El Caracazo," and became a turning point the people felt they could NEVER allow to happen again, no matter what.

His government claimed they killed only a few hundred? The people themselves believe he killed up to 3,000 of them, and they should know since their friends and family members were DEAD.

THAT Venezuelan President was A-OK with the United States right-wing, couldn't be better! A hell of a guy! He was later impeached for massive corruption, embezzlement, went to jail, now he lives in his homes in New York, Miami, various other places, and is considered a major voice in the Venezuelan oligarchy, calling publicly for Hugo Chavez to be assassinated. He's OK, as he's oligarchy, corporate minded.

Contemporary timeline:

~snip~
1973 - Venezuela benefits from oil boom and its currency peaks against the US dollar; oil and steel industries nationalised.

1983-84 - Fall in world oil prices generates unrest and cuts in welfare spending; Dr Jaime Lusinchi (AD) elected president and signs pact involving government, trade unions and business.

1989 - Carlos Andres Perez (AD) elected president against the background of economic depression, which necessitates an austerity programme and an IMF loan. Social and political upheaval includes riots, in which between 300 and 2,000 people are killed, martial law and a general strike.

1992 - Some 120 people are killed in two attempted coups, the first led by future president Colonel Hugo Chavez, and the second carried out by his supporters. Chavez is jailed for two years before being pardoned

1993-95 - Ramon Jose Velasquez becomes interim president after Perez is ousted on charges of corruption; Rafael Caldera elected president.

1996 - Perez imprisoned after being found guilty of embezzlement and corruption.

1998 - Hugo Chavez elected president.

1999 - Severe floods and mudslides hit the north, killing tens of thousands of people.

More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1229348.stm



Dirty twisted buffoon with his friend, _{George H. W. Bush}





Venezuelans enjoying the Presidency of US-supported,
beloved corporatist President Carlos Andres Perez.

[McHatin]

90. My point was...

Exxon is not being "greedy" by taking legal action after Hugo violated a contract he signed. Nothing greedy about the rule of law. Nor is there anything inherently greedy about record profits. Greed is not causing Exxon's profits to go up, the price of oil is.

Now how Exxon spends those profits could indicate the moral compass of the company, but not just the fact that they're making lots of money.

[Joe Chi Minh]

92. Casuistry a child would be ashamed of! Exxon has always been greedy as have its

CEOs and directors, and as clearly would be its apologists, such as yourself. You didn't emerge form a vacuum, however vacuous your spiel. You cannot run a psychopathic entity such as a multinational, like Exxon - which has a particularly squalid reputation - without being deeply personally infected by its guilt. What the hell makes you think massive profits are not iniquitous, you fool!

Adam Smith had your type taped and no mistake.

“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

What are you doing here? Why aren't you posting to Free Republic? As if we didn't know! Your wasting your time. They need someone smarter than you, to peddle their shameless snake-oil.

[McHatin]

98. Thanks for the accusations

All I said was that record profits does not automatically equal a greedy, corrupt corporate entity, in and of itself. This is a kind of a "no duh" comment and not an apology for Exxon. Exxon has done things I do not approve of, but accusing them of being wrong for record profits is a bad way to attack policies you disagree with.

It's against forum rules to accuse others of being a freeper, and in all honesty in this case it shows your lack of any logical reasoning or argument. Just because I don't have "Marx" in my name and don't spout mindless sound bites while degrading others doesn't mean I don't belong in the Democratic tent you pretentious snob.

[Joe Chi Minh]

113. "Just because I don't have "Marx" in my name and don't spout mindless sound bites

while degrading others, doesn't mean I don't belong in the Democratic tent you pretentious snob."

Of course, not. That one sure had a witheringly erudite sting in its tail. Also your championing of the rule of law in support of Big Oil. I'm sure George and his Attorney General would be most gratified that they have such a conscientious and trenchant defender of their honour and that of their peers in Big Oil.

And what's more, I'll be most careful to avoid crossing swords with you again. I can't tell you how thoroughly chastened I feel. I know when I've met my match!

[Judi Lynn]

101. Never noticed your signature line before, have never heard it. It's exceptional. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

112. Thank you, Judy. I enjoy following your struggles for the oppressed peoples

of South America.

[hunter]

93. I suspect if the true value of Exxon's assets were known, the company would be sunk.

So Exxon has to maintain appearances and put up a fight for whatever they are claiming PDVSA took from them. Somewhere in the Exxon books there is a number that must be defended. It doesn't matter how the number got there, but it seems unlikely the number got into the books by any sort of ethical contracting.

[Harper_is_Bush]

94. Exxon deserves everything bad that happens to it. n/t

[ohio2007]

111. Chavez will see that "we pay at the pump"

Venezuela's State Oil Company Halts Oil Sales to Exxon Mobil

snip
Meanwhile, Venezuelan state television has begun airing short anti-Exxon segments, with a message appearing on the screen in red text reading: "Exxon Mobil turns oil into blood."

The U.S. remains the No. 1 buyer of Venezuelan oil, and Chavez relies largely on U.S. oil money to stimulate his economy and bankroll social programs that have traditionally boosted his popularity.

Some analysts say it would make little sense for Chavez to follow through on his broader threats to cut off oil sales to the U.S. because Venezuela owns refineries in the United States that are customized to handle the South American country's heavy crude.

Ramirez said Venezuela is selling the U.S. a daily average of 1.5 million barrels of crude and other products derived from oil.


http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080212/venezuela_us_oil.html?.v=9

hmmm

He's holding a gun to his head and threatens to shoot......